KTVU.com:

A video showing the interaction between a Campbell police officer and two citizens during a traffic stop on Highway 101 is circulating on Facebook.

The video, filmed by the driver, is a little over nine minutes long and shows an officer pointing his gun at the passenger.

The passenger repeatedly asks the officer to stop pointing his gun, saying his hands are clearly visibly and he is complying with the officers orders.

The officer continues to point his gun into the car as he calls for backup.

According to Campbell Police, the vehicle was pulled over for speeding. The officer asked the driver for her license and additional paperwork. Police say the driver and passenger spent several minutes looking for the paperwork, when the passenger began reaching under his seat. That’s when the officer perceived a threat and withdrew his gun.

“We understand that it is never a comfortable position to have a gun pointed at you, regardless of whether it is a police officer. Unfortunately, the length of time that the officer’s gun was drawn lasted much longer than normal based on his location. If this same situation would have occurred closer to back-up officers, it would most likely have been resolved much sooner,” Campbell Police Public Information officer Gary Berg said in a statement.

Both the driver and the passenger were issued citations and were allowed to leave.

Watch the video.  Hahahahaha … that’s funny.  I hate it when that happens to me.

I remember the last time I pointed one of my guns at someone because I didn’t know what they were doing.  It was in a grocery store parking lot and two guys were standing around talking.  I didn’t really know what was going on.  For all I knew, they were making plans to go into the store and shoot up the place.

So I called my neighbor for backup, and he also pointed a gun at the two men until we found out they were talking about grilling out that weekend.  No harm, no foul.  They called the cops on me, but I told the cops that I just didn’t know what was going on and it was better to be safe than sorry.

He understood.  He told me I had as many rights as he did, and he would have done the same thing.

Andrew Doran:

For their part, those fighting for ISIS — Saudis, Chechens, Afghans, French, Turks, Pakistanis, Germans, and Americans, among others — are under no illusions that they are in the last days of the geographical caliphate. The coalition hope was to kill every member of ISIS in Mosul and Raqqa, to prevent them from returning to their countries to carry out attacks. It is certain, however, that many have already escaped. One sees many bearded young men among the caravans of refugees of fleeing Mosul and Raqqa.

The ISIS fighters who don’t blow themselves up in suicide bombings may fight to the death. Or they may try to return to their countries of origin to carry out lone-wolf — or perhaps coordinated — attacks. The latter would be in keeping with the spirit of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the true founder and visionary of ISIS. Zarqawi carried out such attacks with lethal efficiency in Iraq — against defenseless civilians in public places, including houses of worship and even elementary schools. These forms of terrorism have already become somewhat commonplace in the Western world and are certain to increase in the months and years ahead.

[ … ]

The next morning, ISIS breaks through and attacks an Arab position to the northeast, killing four. A suicide blast rocks a Syriac unit atop a roof overlooking a vast urban no-man’s-land. From their rooftop position, Christian and “Paul,” another American volunteer, swing into action with two soldiers, one Arab and the other Syriac. The exchanges last perhaps 30 minutes. Christian and Paul lay down machine-gun and small-arms fire, bringing the morning’s fight to a conclusion with Christian firing a rocket-propelled grenade into an ISIS position. “In the Marine Corps, we call that fire superiority,” says Christian. “It works.”

“We make progress during the day, but there are snipers,” says “Kino,”one of the Syriac commanders and its spokesman. “We have to be careful also of IEDs and snipers. They also use drones.” ISIS drones are a daily occurrence. “I think each drone carries four bombs. It’s a very effective weapon for them. Once they’re overhead, no one can move.” The drone improvisation is unexpected and probably has been effective in slowing the SDF advance. ISIS appears to have no shortage of drones. One of them, a reconnaissance drone, was made in Simi Valley, Calif. “I’m guessing they got this from the Iraqi army,” says Paul, who serves as both soldier and medic.

“Christian” and “Paul.”  I like their choice of Nom de Guerre.  And I respect what they are doing.  These are brave men, and the article is deadly accurate.  Islamic violence is going to increase, not decrease, and it’s going to do so not only in Eurasia, the U.K. and across the Middle and Far East, but in CONUS as well.  Count on it.

Are you ready?  Have you “gunned up” yet?  Do you avoid crowds?  Do you stay in good physical shape?  Have you stocked your gun safe with ammunition yet?  If you are a sleepy, lazy Christian who expects to be pulled out of the festivities with the ridiculous “rapture,” what are you going to do when young Muslims rape your daughter because she isn’t wearing a hijab?  You realize that by believing in the rapture you believe that God is only going to save American Christians, don’t you?

How arrogant is that?  God allowed His people to suffer and become slaughtered in Mesopotamia at the hands of ISIS, in Egypt at the hands of Islamists (i.e., the Coptic Christians), in Turkey at the hands of the Islamists (i.e., the Armenians) and on and on we could go.  But God is going to spare you because American Christians are special.  Or something.

I have a right to say these things to you, if you are a Christian, since I am one of you, except that I don’t believe in your rapture.  And you have a responsibility to act when you can, and that “when you can” is right now, not later.  As for ISIS getting their drones from the Iraqi Army, perhaps, but remember that “patriot” John McCain demanded that we fund them with weapons, and so we did.  And remember that McCain and Lindsey Graham have oil plays in North Africa.

The “them” I’m talking about is addressed in the article at NRO.

“The U.S. was going to arm us [the Syriac Military Council] in 2015, but they went with the FSA instead,” says one of the Syriac commanders. That the Free Syrian Army turned out to be little more than Islamist militias, and that the U.S.-government program was nothing short of disastrous, is now well documented. The Syrian Democratic Forces, especially units like the Syriac Military Council, are much closer to what the FSA duped gullible Westerners into thinking that it was.

The Westerners weren’t gullible, and no one was duped.  George Soros, DynCorp, the Obama administration and McCain always intended to arm ISIS.  The U.S. created ISIS by intent, not by accident.

Similarly, population replacement is the order of the day in the U.K., and the LEOs have all been brainwashed and coopted into the project.  If you don’t believe this is headed to America, you are asleep at the wheel careening for the cliff.

Via Dave Hardy, this analysis comes from Joseph Blocher.

Second Amendment battles after Heller have generally been fought along two dimensions: the scope of the Amendment’s coverage, and the degree of protection it accords to the people, arms, and activities that it covers. In important respects, the panel decision in Wrenn departs from most other circuits on both of those dimensions.

Courts have overwhelmingly held or, or at least assumed, that the Second Amendment has some application outside the home. The panel decision follows that trend. Even Judge Karen Henderson’s dissenting opinion assumes that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home.

From there, however, the panel opinion breaks new ground, concluding that Second Amendment must have the same application outside the home as it does inside it. The majority reaches this conclusion based largely on its belief that the rights to “keep” and “bear” are “Constitutional twin[s],” and exist “on par.” Because they are both fundamental, the court treats the right to bear arms outside the home nearly identically to the right to keep arms inside it, despite the fact that Heller said the right to armed self defense is “most acute” in the home and weapons have always been regulated more strictly in public, especially in urban areas.

This doctrinal conclusion will surely be contested.  But even if the two rights are separate and fundamental, it does not follow as a matter of law that they must be subject to the same doctrinal tests. The constitution protects lots of fundamental rights, but uses a wide range of legal tests: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, undue burdens, and the like.

What’s most striking about the panel opinion, however, is the short shrift it gives to the governmental interest in regulation. The motion at issue sought a preliminary injunction, but the panel remanded with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against the proper reason restriction “regardless of its precise benefits.” To find a law—which, again, was nota complete ban—categorically unconstitutional without even considering the government’s asserted interest, is a remarkable step.

The panel’s refusal to permit evidence on the constitutionality of the law makes it impossible to actually answer the questions that the panel opinion itself raises: Whether DC residents retain adequate alternative methods of self-defense, for example. An affirmative answer to that question would support the law’s constitutionality, but would require some consideration of evidence.

More fundamentally, the panel’s approach threatens to inexorably expand Second Amendment rights, erasing at each step the qualifications built into the step before. Heller itself was deeply conflicted about how to incorporate the history of gun regulation, and the historical evidence about the extent of that regulation has only grown since then—a fact that should be particularly important to those who care about original public meaning. Likewise, courts before Heller upheld a wide variety of gun regulations, on a wide range of theories. The panel opinion, however, disregards a great many such cases on the basis that they were decided at a time (i.e., prior to 2008) when the overwhelming constitutional consensus was that the Second Amendment did not protect a right to keep and bear arms for private purposes.

Read the rest of his insightful analysis.

I’ve always said that Heller was a weak decision in that it didn’t fully recognize the right of self defense outside the home, and have said so many times.  Perhaps it’s all Scalia could get out of the majority in his Heller decision.

Either way, the appeals court is doing the heavy lifting for the now-deceased Scalia.  It’s almost like they read the part about “shall not be infringed,” yes?

The Washington Times:

Two armed home invaders entered a Harris County, Texas, home on Monday, but only one lived to talk about it.

Thomas Gilliland of Harris County Sheriff’s Office told reporters this week that a 60-year-old woman exercised her Second Amendment rights to fend off two men. One of the suspects collapsed and died in her front yard shortly after 11:30 a.m. local time.

“It’s the state of Texas — if you’re going to go into someone’s home, you’re going to get shot,” neighbor Cathy Hanks told a local CBS affiliate. “That’s really how we are. That’s just Texas.”

The unidentified suspect who got away was wearing dark clothing and visible red underwear, the station reported. The victim, whose name was not publicized, said he appeared to be around 20-years-old.

“Both were armed with pistols. She confronted both suspects,” said Mr. Gilliland added.

One firearm was found next to the dead suspect’s body.

There must be some mistake.  This is impossible.  It’s impossible to own a gun and actually be safer because of it.  Er … it’s impossible to defend your life without all of that Ninja warrior stress control training.  Er … it’s impossible for old people to defend their lives with a gun.  Er … a gun makes you statistically less safe.

I just can’t believe this.  You mean she was able to do this without going to classes taught by former SpecOps on CQB and room clearing TTPs?

As for the progs among us, they would rather the woman have been raped and killed than to use a gun to defend herself.